Court denies Ukrhazvydobuvannya's claim to recover 724,000 UAH from Chinese contractor

The state enterprise Ukrhazvydobuvannya suffered a defeat in court proceedings in which it sought to recover 724,400 UAH paid to a foreign contractor. The court denied the claim, establishing that the funds were transferred under a valid contract and that the documents certifying the completion of works were signed by both parties without any reservations.

Contract details and disputed costs

The conflict arose against the backdrop of works carried out under an agreement concluded in 2022 between Ukrhazvydobuvannya and Hailon Oil Service and Engineering Ukraine LLC. The subject of the contract was the repair of Well No. 2 of the Yabluniv oil, gas and condensate field, located in Poltava region. The total value of this contract could have reached 43.7 million UAH.

After paying for the works, the state company discovered that 109.5 crew-hours of technological waiting time had been included in their cost. According to Ukrhazvydobuvannya representatives, this time was spent on the inspection and flaw detection of drilling tools and should not have been paid for. Consequently, the company considered that the contractor had unjustly received 724,400 UAH.

Parties' positions in court

Representatives of the Chinese company, conversely, emphasised the necessity of conducting flaw detection to ensure safety during the execution of works. They also drew attention to the terms of the contract itself, which provided for the payment of technological waiting time at a rate of 75% of the crew-hour cost.

Grounds for the court's decision

The decisive factor for the court was that the contract remained in force: it had not been terminated and was not declared invalid. Furthermore, the certificates of completed works and the calculations of the repair duration were signed by both parties without any objections.

In view of these circumstances, the court did not qualify the funds received by the contractor as unjust enrichment. Thus, Ukrhazvydobuvannya's claim was left unsatisfied.

It is worth noting that this decision does not mean the final closure of all issues regarding settlements under the contract. It is based exclusively on the validity of the agreement and the presence of documents that the parties agreed upon without objection. The state company failed to recover the amount it later recognised as an overpayment.